[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171120212941.051d11c4@delmar.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:29:41 +0000
From: Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@...il.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/18] arm64: crypto: disable LTO for aes-ce-cipher.c
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:20:14 +0000
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:34:26PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > CONFIG_LTO_CLANG requires the use of clang's integrated assembler,
> > which doesn't understand the inline assembly in aes-ce-cipher.c.
> > Disable LTO for the file to work around the issue.
>
> Could you elaborate on what the integrated asembler doesn't like?
>
> It's not entirely clear at a glance, as the asm in that file doesn't
> seem to do anything that obscure.
>
> Is it a bug?
Turns out, integrated assembler doesn't like this instruction in
aes_sub():
umov %w[out], v0.4s[0]
Specifically, it barks at "v0.4s[0]" part. And the way I read the spec,
it's quite correct in not accepting this argument. From UMOV
description:
UMOV <Wd>, <Vn>.<Ts>[<index>]
...
<Ts> For the 32-bit variant: is an element size specifier, encoded in
the "imm5" field. It can have the following values:
B when imm5 = xxxx1
H when imm5 = xxx10
S when imm5 = xx100
With "v0.s[0]" it builds fine.
Ard, since this is your code, can you comment? Feels like a typo.
Regards,
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists